Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 04-1468
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-427-A)
Argued:
Decided:
ARGUED: John Holt Harman, COGGINS, HARMAN & HEWITT, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Robert A. Jaffe, KUTAK ROCK, L.L.P.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey S. Jacobovitz,
KUTAK ROCK, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
PER CURIAM:
Levin Professional Services, Inc. (Levin) appeals the ruling
of the district court granting summary judgment for Wells Fargo
Bank (Wells Fargo) and denying Levins cross motion for summary
judgment.* The action was brought by Wells Fargo, an indenture
trustee, against Levin, an equipment vendor, alleging that Levin
improperly garnished lease payments owed to Wells Fargo. We affirm
the well-considered opinion of the district court.
Factual and Procedural Background
Levin
equipment.
Terminal
is
Maryland
corporation
engaged
in
the
sale
of
Company,
Inc.
(Terminal),
which
leases
to
Wells
Fargo
for
cash
payments
from
noteholder
Terminal received
payments of $294,098 for the lease, and Wells Fargo took possession
of the lease.
On March 5, 2001, Levin filed suit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland against Terminal for failure to pay
invoices, including an invoice for the property delivered to
Henninger.
Levin
registered the default judgment in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia and that court issued a Writ of Attachment to
Asgard Entertainment Group, Inc. (Asgard), another entity that
had leased equipment from Terminal which Terminal had purchased
from Levin.
action
by
filing
condemnation of property.
its
opposition
to
motion
for
stating that it was obligated to pay Terminal under Lease 4023, but
a
magistrate
judge
payments to Levin.
later
ordered
Henninger
to
deliver
those
Wells
given the same standard of review and we consider and rule upon
each
partys
motion
separately
and
determine
whether
summary
Levin Profl Servs., Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 638 (E.D. Va. 2004).
In
its motion for summary judgment, Wells Fargo asserted that the
defendant could not meet its burden to show a genuine issue as to
any material fact, and that Levins garnishment of the payments
under Lease 4023 was improper because Terminal lacked rights to
both
the
lease
and
the
lease
5
payments
at
the
time
of
the
garnishment.
valid under New York law, which was the parties choice of law to
govern the assignment, and predated Levins garnishment action.
See Leon v. Martinez, 638 N.E.2d 511, 513, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 614
N.Y.S.2d 972 (1994) (noting that New York law does not require any
particular
phraseology
to
effect
an
assignment,
it
is
only
No genuine issue of
Ashland Lumber Co., Inc., 250 Va. 507, 511, 463 S.E.2d 664 (1995)
([W]hen the judgment debtor has no interest in the property held
by the suggested garnishee, the writ does not create a valid lien
on that property, and the suggestion for summons in garnishment
6
must fail.); Lynch v. Johnson, 196 Va. 516, 84 S.E.2d 419 (1954).
Levins garnishment of the Lease 4023 payments was therefore
improper, and summary judgment was appropriately granted to the
plaintiff.
Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
We also conclude that the district court properly denied
defendants
motion
for
summary
judgment.
We
agree
that
the